HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through these petitions, the Petitioners M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., M/s. Rama Harzai and M/s. Sachdeva Enterprises have sought quashing of respective complaints filed against them, being complaint cases No. 59/PF/DA/08, CC No. 1854/2009, CC No. 1944/2009 and CC No. 1961/2009, all under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "PFA Act") pending in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi and also impugned orders respectively dated 01.05.2008, 02.05.2009, 16.09.2009 and 14.10.2009, issuing processes against the Petitioners as also the proceedings emanating from the complaints.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts leading to filing of these petitions are that on 10th May, 2005, 18th April, 2006, 24th May, 2006 and 07th November, 2006, the concerned Food Inspectors purchased samples of "Kissan Tomato Ketchup for analysis from the premises of M/s. Nut and Cookies, Shop No. G 24/1, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi; M/s. Shangrila Chinese Food (Kitchen of Golden Dragon Restaurant), RBI Colony, Outer Ring Road, Hauz Khas; M/s. Modern Store, 42, East Avenue Road, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and from Sh. Ravinder Kumar, nominee of M/s. Intercontinental, The Grand (a unit of Bharat Hotels Ltd.), Barakhamba Avenue, New Delhi respectively. Those samples were sent to Public Analyst and as per the reports of Public Analyst, the samples were found to be misbranded because the label declared "Best Before" in a misleading manner, though the samples conformed to standards. As per the report of the Public Analyst, the label on samples declared "Best before 12 months from manufacture" but the date of manufacture was not mentioned on the label, though the date of packaging was given.

(3.) Though several grounds for quashing of complaints have been taken in respective petitions, learned Sh.R.N. Mittal, Sr. Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, has pressed for only two grounds. His first contention is that as per the report of the Analyst, date of packaging of Tomato Ketchup is mentioned as March 6, 2006, which date obviously has to be the date of manufacture. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the label describes that the contents of the bottle are best for use before the expiry of 12 months from the date of manufacture, therefore, the message is clear to the customer that the Ketchup in the bottle is best for use within 12 months from the date of packaging, as such, there is no misleading or misbranding of label. Secondly, it is submitted by learned Senior Advocate that during the period in which respective samples were taken by Food Inspector, there was a policy of Respondents in existence and as per the aforesaid policy, being policy No. F6(228)/85/ENF/P.F.A. dated 20.09.1985, in the cases of misbranding of label only, the department was required to give a warning to the defaulter before launching prosecution and prosecution could be launched only if the defaulter continued with the default after the warning, provided the sample was found up-to the standard. Learned Senior Counsel contended that in the instant cases, as per the report of Chemical Analyst, the samples conformed to the standard, as such, if at all it was a case of misbranding, the department, instead of launching the prosecution of the Petitioners in complaint cases No. 59/PF/DA/08, CC No. 1854/2009, CC No. 1944/2009 and CC No. 1961/2009 ought to have brought the default to the notice of the offenders before launching the prosecution and the prosecution could only be lodged in the event of default after the warning.